Monday, March 14, 2016

The Palisades Reservoir area has seen several small plane crashes over the past year.KPVI News that Works for You looked into the unique challenges posed in mountain flying.KPVI spoke with an experienced ISU flight instructor and one of his students about flying small planes through the mountains of East Idaho and Western Wyoming.They say flying above the mountains is one of the most amazing things you will ever see, but it’s not without risks.“It’s extremely challenging. There is many more things that you have to think about,” says Tucker Stefan, ISU Student.Tucker Stefan is a student at Idaho State University. He tells KPVI that he has flown into nearly every back country airstrip in Idaho.“Situational awareness is definitely very important, I mean it’s not you know the same as flying over open country for sure,” says Stefan.Michael Evans, the Program Coordinator for Idaho State University Aviation, tells KPVI that there are several factors to consider when flying through mountain ranges.“Pilots need to be proficient in slow flight. This is where we fly air speeds that are approaching minimum controllable air speed,” says Michael Evans, Program Coordinator, ISU Aviation.Evans says flying at slower speeds allows the aircraft to make a smaller radius of a turn inside a canyon.Another major factor pilots have to pay attention to is weather.“No matter when it’s clear every place else, it seems like we have clouds in the mountains, so sometimes we are flying below the clouds and we just have to know exactly where we are at all times,” says Evans.Evans says pilots also have to be aware of where they fly, in relation to various peaks, including which side relative to the wind, and height at which they cross over peaks.“We want to cross the mountains at 45 degrees, one thousand feet above the nearest peak, unless the wind is 20 knots or higher, then we want to cross at two thousand feet higher than the nearest peak,” says Evans.Lastly, Evans says flight preparation is critical, including filing a flight plan and making sure your aircraft is properly maintained.“Always make sure your aircraft is at peak performance and everything is operating normally. Never take a chance,” says concludes Evans.Evans says flying through the mountains isn’t necessarily more dangerous, you just need to be more cautious and have knowledge of the area you are flying in.Story and video: http://www.kpvi.com

A janitor was arrested and charged in the theft of a pilot's gun in a bathroom at Philadelphia International Airport Saturday.Police say an armed Federal Flight Officer went into the men's restroom inside the airport's sterile area next to the Terminal B Security Checkpoint around 8:30 a.m. When he left the bathroom he forgot a black nylon "shaving kit" sized bag that contained his Air Marshal issued H&K .40 caliber handgun, according to investigators.The pilot went back to the bathroom but couldn't find his bag or gun. He then notified police and the Air Marshals.A Philadelphia Police officer said he searched through the restroom and later learned a janitor had been in the bathroom when the bag was taken. The officer then searched through the custodial closet inside the restroom entrance where he found the Flight Officer's gun, police said.Airport surveillance video showed the janitor entering the restroom while the Flight Officer was inside, according to investigators. Officials said the janitor was the only airport employee seen on video who entered the restroom while the Flight Officer's bag was unattended. They also said the janitor was the only airport employee with a key to the custodial closet who was in the area at the time.The janitor, who police identified as 31-year-old Victor Sheard, was arrested and charged with theft-unlawful taking, theft-receiving stolen property, violation of the uniform firearms act and other related offenses.A few flights were temporarily delayed when the gun went missing. Normal operations at the airport were later resumed.The armed pilot is part of the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program. The program allows commercial pilots to volunteer to carry weapons to protect their aircraft from attacks. Officials have not yet revealed whether the pilot will face any disciplinary actions from the TSA for the incident.Story and video: http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com

Passengers aboard an Allegiant Air flight headed toward the Elmira-Corning Regional Airport had a bit of a scare Sunday evening when they were forced to make an emergency landing in Baltimore.“We were going through the cover-your-head-and-tuck drill,” said one passenger, who asked that he not be identified. “Kids were crying."The plane left St. Petersburg, Fla., on Sunday afternoon and was expected to land that evening in Elmira. Instead, passengers were told to prepare for an emergency landing at Baltimore Washington International Airport.Elmira-Corning Regional Airport Manager Ann Crook said an indicator in the cockpit alerted the crew to a possible issue with the plane's brakes.The plane seemed to come in a bit fast and bumpy but otherwise it was a “routine landing,” the passenger said.“We did smell an odor in the cabin while the plane was in the air,” he said.Crews in Baltimore checked the plane for mechanical problems, and everything was found to be in excellent condition, Crook said. The plane, which was carrying about 150 passengers, eventually landed in Elmira at about 3 a.m, she said.Original article can be found here: http://www.the-leader.com

The National Transportation Safety Board did not travel to the scene of this accident. Aviation Accident Preliminary Report - National Transportation Safety Board: http://app.ntsb.gov/pdfFLIGHT OPTIONS LLC: http://registry.faa.gov/N465FLFAA Flight Standards District Office: FAA Atlanta FSDO-11NTSB Identification: ERA16LA13114 CFR Part 91: General AviationAccident occurred Monday, March 14, 2016 in Rome, GAAircraft: RAYTHEON AIRCRAFT COMPANY 400A, registration: N465FLInjuries: 1 Minor, 1 Uninjured.This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.On March 14, 2016, at 1508 eastern daylight time, a Raytheon Aircraft Company 400A, N465FL, was substantially damaged during a runway excursion while landing at Richard B. Russell Regional Airport (RMG), Rome, Georgia. The pilot was uninjured and the co-pilot received minor injuries. The airplane was registered to Flight Options, LLC and was being operated in accordance with Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a positioning flight that originated at Jackson County Airport-Reynolds Field (JXN), Jackson, Michigan. The flight was operating under an instrument flight plan and visual meteorological conditions were reported at the airport at the time of the accident.According to the crew, they began their descent while under Atlanta Air Route Traffic Control and retrieved the weather conditions from the automated surface observing system at RMG, which indicated the winds were variable at 6 knots. They requested and were cleared for the visual approach to runway 7, which was 4,495 feet-long.While in the traffic pattern and abeam the runway numbers, the crew lowered the landing gear and deployed 20 degrees of flaps, followed by 30 degrees on the base leg. On final approach, the crew stated that the turbulence was moderate and the airspeed started fluctuate and decrease to Vref. They responded by adjusting engine power on short final, and noted that "considerable power" was necessary to maintain airspeed. The airplane touched down at the Vref speed of 112 kts inside the touchdown zone, but the ground speed appeared to be fast.The crew activated the speed brakes, and the pilot applied the wheel brakes (the airplane was not equipped with thrust reversers). The crew then increased their braking to maximum, and when it was evident that the airplane not going to stop before the end of the runway, they activated the emergency brake. The airplane departed the end of the runway and travelled into the safety area, where it sank into the grass and mud as it continued forward in a slight left turn. The nose landing gear collapsed and the forward fuselage struck the ground resulting in substantial damage to the airframe. The airplane came to rest approximately 350 feet from the departure end of the runway.The airplane was recovered from the site and retained for additional investigation.

NTSB Identification: CEN13LA462
14 CFR Part 91: General AviationAccident occurred Monday, August 05, 2013 in Eden Prairie, MNProbable Cause Approval Date: 09/12/2016Aircraft: EMBRAER S A EMB-505, registration: N327FLInjuries: 2 Uninjured.NTSB investigators may have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.The flight crew of the light jet was conducting a landing to a wet 5,000-ft-long runway. Their preflight calculations indicated an approach speed of 110 knots given the airplane's estimated landing weight. Data obtained from the flight recorder showed that, as the airplane descended through about 500 ft above ground level on final approach, its speed was 186 knots and its rate of descent was over 3,000 ft per minute. The airplane crossed the runway threshold about 158 knots, and touched down about 1,000 feet down the runway about 145 knots. The airplane subsequently departed the end of the runway, impacted obstructions, and came to rest upright on a four-lane highway about 1,000 ft beyond the runway surface. A postaccident examination of the engines, airframe, and braking system revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.The operator’s procedures stated that all approaches to land must be stabilized at 500 feet above airport elevation, and any approach that became unstabilized required an immediate go-around. Among the company's criteria for determining a stable approach was: airspeed no more than 20 knots over target, and descent rate no greater than 1,000 ft per minute. During the approach, the airspeed was 76 knots over the target approach speed and the descent rate of 3,000 ft per minute greatly exceeded the criteria for a stabilized approach. The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:The flight crew's failure to execute a go-around during a non-stabilized approach, which resulted in a runway overrun.On August 5, 2013, at 0848 central daylight time, N327FL, an Embraer S.A. EMB-505, multi-engine turbofan airplane, was substantially damaged during landing at Flying Cloud Airport (FCM), Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The two pilots were not injured. The airplane was registered to and operated by Flight Options, LLC; Cleveland, Ohio. Day visual meteorological conditions (VMC) prevailed at the time of the accident and an instrument flight rules flight plan had been filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 positioning flight. The airplane had departed Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, at 0731 eastern daylight time and was destined for FCM.Both pilots reported that the airplane had been on a fast and steep visual approach when it then landed on runway 10R at FCM. They also reported that the indicated airspeed was about 150 to 160 knots when the airplane touched down on the runway at some point after the 1,000 foot marker. The airplane departed the end of the 5,000 foot long runway and impacted an airport boundary fence and other obstructions before coming to rest upright on a four-lane highway about 1,000 feet from the runway surface. The impact resulted in substantial damage to both wings and the fuselage.A hand written takeoff and landing data card prepared by the flight crew before their arrival at FCM showed their expected landing weight was 14,000 pounds, their calculated Vref speed was 106 knots, and the Vap speed was 110 knots, with the flaps set at position 3. The airport elevation was noted as 906 feet. The space on the card for runway required was blank and did not have an entry.Data on page PD35-3 in the Quick Reference Handbook (QRH) showed landing performance for an EMB-505 airplane landing at an airport at an altitude of 1,000 feet at a landing weight of 14,000 pounds, with the flaps set at position 3. When the airplane was flown at a Vref speed of 107 knots and a Vap speed of 110 knots, the expected dry runway unfactored landing distance was 2,378 feet, the expected wet unfactored landing distance was 3,000 feet, and the expected wet factored landing distance was 4,600 feet.A combination voice and flight data recorder (CVDR) was removed from the wreckage and examined at the NTSB Vehicle Recorder Laboratory, in Washington, D.C. The cockpit voice recorder portion of the CVDR contained 2 hours and 4 minutes of excellent quality voice recordings. A cockpit voice recorder group was convened and a partial transcript was prepared for the last 32 minutes of the flight.Data from the flight data recorder (FDR) portion of the CVDR recording contained about 107 hours of data. The accident flight was the last flight of the FDR recording and its duration was about 2 hours and 56 minutes, which included the portion of time during the preflight checks before departure from PIT.An examination of the FDR data showed the following:At 0846:40 the airplane was on final approach at an altitude of 2,510 feet mean sea level (msl), at an indicated airspeed of 177 knots, and was descending at 3,986 feet per minute. The airplane was then configured with the landing gear extended, the speed brake extended, and the flaps at position 1.At 0846:40 the recorder values for both engines were about 30 percent N1, and they remained at this level until engine shutdown after the airplane came to rest.Between 0846:40 and 0847:17 thirteen different aural warning unit (AWU) sounds were announced including multiple calls of: "whoop whoop pull up", "high speed", and "too low. terrain".At 0847:02 the airplane was on final approach at an indicated airspeed of 186 knots, at an altitude of 1,329 feet msl, or about 423 feet above the airport, and was descending at 3,077 feet per minute.At 0847:14 the AWU announced "two hundred".At 0847:16 the flap lever was selected to position 2.At 0847:18 the AWU announced "one hundred".At 0847:18 the indicated airspeed was 168 knots and the flap lever was selected to position 3.At 0847:24 the airplane crossed the runway threshold at an indicated airspeed of 158 knots.At 0847:28 the airplane touched down on the runway. Indicated airspeed near the point of touchdown was between 145 and 148 knots and groundspeed was between 150 and 153 knots.At 0847:29 brake pressures for both left and right braking systems began increasing to an initial local maxima of around 630 psi between about five and six seconds after the maximum wheel spin value was recorded. Left and right brake pressure values varied between about 140 and 740 psi until 0847:47.At 0847:47 there was a recorded brake pedal displacement of about 35 mm of stroke for the right brake pedal and the FDR discrete for brake fail parameter changed to true. Brake pressures then dropped to a value of about 50 psi and remained near that value for the remainder of the recording.At 0847:50 indicated airspeed was 68 knots when the airplane exited the runway surface.At 08:48:07 indicated airspeed and groundspeed had become approximately zero knots.FDR data for the emergency / parking brake lever discrete showed the brake to be on at the start of the flight and was then moved to the release position for taxing during the airplane's departure from PIT. The emergency / parking brake lever remained off for the remainder of the flight and was not activated during the landing at FCM.Instructions in the QRH for a loss of normal braking on page EAP12-5 showed that when the yellow BRK FAIL message is illuminated the emergency / parking brake lever should be gently applied.Embraer reported that the brake-by-wire system is designed such that if a failure occurs in either pedal transducer, then the system will declare a brake failure and close the main brake system shut-off valve. The brakes could then be controlled by the emergency brake system using the emergency / park brake handle. There is no anti-skid function when using this emergency brake system.Recorded data from the brake control unit (BCU) and the FDR indicated that the brakes initially operated normally during the landing roll with the anti-skid operating. During landing, the pedal displacement gradually increased over 17 seconds until the BRK FAIL message illuminated and failure of the normal brake system occurred. The displacement of the right pedal suggests that this failure occurred as a result of over travel of the pedal beyond the mechanical stop.The recorded data also showed that during the accident landing the emergency / parking brake handle was not actuated and remained at the off position.Wreckage examination:A postaccident examination of the engines and the airframe revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.The BCU was examined at the manufacturer's facility. The BCU passed a full functional test and it was returned to service.Airport Information:The FAA Airport/ Facility Directory, North Central U. S., indicated that FCM was a towered airport with a field elevation of 906 feet mean sea level (msl). The longest runway was 10R-28L, which was an asphalt runway 5,000 feet long by 100 feet wide. Runway 10R was oriented to 098.8 degrees true and 99.9 degrees magnetic. Records show that the asphalt surface was not grooved and did not have a porous friction course overlay.Meteorological Information:At 0838 the recorded weather data from FCM revealed that the wind was from 150 degrees at 4 knots, 6 miles visibility in mist, few clouds at 200 feet above ground level (agl), an overcast ceiling at 7,000 feet agl, temperature 18 degrees C, dew point temperature 17 degrees C, with an altimeter setting of 29.89 inches of mercury. Remarks indicated that rain ended at 0819 with a one hour precipitation of 0.01 inches. At 0737 FCM reported that there had been a one hour total of 0.14 inches of rain. At 0653 FCM reported that the daily total rainfall had been 0.81 inches.At 0847:43 a security camera video frame capture photo showed the aircraft parking ramp adjacent to the runway was wet and there were pools of standing water. Photos of the roadway surface taken between 0857 and 0901 showed the pavement was wet. At 1035 a photo of the runway surface showed the pavement was wet and had several areas of standing water.Additional Information:FAA AC 120-108 states "A stabilized approach is a key feature to a safe approach and landing (and is) characterized by maintaining a stable approach speed, descent rate, vertical flight path, and configuration to the landing touchdown point ... at a rate of descent no greater than 1,000 feet per minute (fpm)"FAA Safety Alert for Operators - SAFO 15009 Date: 8/11/15Subject: Turbojet Braking Performance on Wet Runways"Several recent runway landing incidents/accidents have raised concerns with wet runway stopping performance assumptions. Analysis of the stopping data from these incidents/accidents indicates the braking coefficient of friction in each case was significantly lower than expected for a wet runway as defined by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Federal Air Regulation (FAR) 25.109 and Advisory Circular (AC) 25-7C methods. These incidents/accidents occurred on both grooved and un-grooved or non-Porous Friction Course overlay (PFC) runways. The data indicates that applying a 15 percent safety margin to wet runway time-of-arrival advisory data as, recommended by SAFO 06012, may be inadequate in certain wet runway conditions."FAA Advisory Circular AC No: 91-79A - Date: 9/17/14Subject: Mitigating the Risks of a Runway Overrun Upon LandingParagraph 6, c, (1): "A 10 percent increase in final approach speed results in a 20 percent increase in landing distance."…Paragraph 6, j.: "Landing distances in the manufacturer-supplied AFM provide performance in a flight test environment that is not necessarily representative of normal flight operations. For those operators conducting operations in accordance with specific FAA performance regulations, the operating regulations require the AFM landing distances to be factored to ensure compliance with the pre-departure landing distance regulations. These factors should account for pilot technique, wind and runway conditions, and other items stated above. Pilots and operators should also account for runway conditions at the time of arrival (TOA) to ensure the safety of the landing. Though the intended audience of SAFO 06012 is turbojet airplanes, it is highly recommended that pilots of non-turbojet airplanes also follow the recommendations in SAFO 06012."(1) The SAFO urgently recommends that operators develop a procedure for flightcrews to assess landing performance based on conditions actually existing at the TOA, as distinct from conditions presumed at time of dispatch. Those conditions include weather, runway conditions, the airplane's landing weight, landing configuration, approach speed, and the flightcrew deploys deceleration devices in a timely manner.(2) Once the actual landing distance is determined, an additional safety margin of at least 15 percent should be added to that distance. Except under emergency conditions, flightcrews should not attempt to land on runways that do not meet the assessment criteria and safety margins as specified in SAFO 06012.(3) A safety margin of 15 percent should be added, and the resulting distance should be within the runway length available. The FAA considers a 15 percent margin to be the minimum acceptable safety margin.…Appendix 1; Paragraph 2: Definitions:j. Unfactored or Certified Landing Distance. The landing distance determined during certification as required by 14 CFR part 23, § 23.75 and 14 CFR part 25, § 25.125. The unfactored landing distance is not adjusted for any safety margin additives. The unfactored certified landing distance may be different from the actual landing distance because not all factors affecting landing distance are required to be accounted for by certification regulations.k. Factored Landing Distance. For applicable operations, the dispatch landing distance allows the airplane to land and stop within 60 percent of the available runway when the runway is dry. The factored landing distance is the certified landing distance multiplied by 1.67, which can then be compared directly to the available landing distance. When the runway is wet, the certified distance is multiplied by 1.97 to account for the 15 percent additional runway requirement.FAA Safety Alert for Operators SAFO 10005 - Date: 3/1/10Subject: Go-Around Callout and Immediate Response"It is critical to flight safety that both the pilot flying and the pilot monitoring should be able to call for a go-around if either pilot believes an unsafe condition exists. Also, although CRM principles prescribe that some cockpit decisions can be made by crew consensus, others, including the go-around callout, require immediate action, without question, because of the immediacy of the situation."Flight Options – Flight Operations ManualPage 4-19 – Date June 1, 2012Subject: Go around"Any time a "Go Around" is called, the PF will immediately execute the briefed maneuver. Any crewmember can call a "Go Around." "Flight Options – Flight Operations ManualPage 4-98 – Date June 1, 2012Subject: Stabilized Approach Criteria"All flights must be stabilized at 500' above MDA/DH when IMC or 500' above airport elevation when in VMC conditions. A go-around must be initiated if the aircraft does not meet the stabilized approach criteria … An approach is stabilized when it meets the following criteria: 1. All briefings have been conducted2. Aircraft is fully configured … for landing3. IAS airspeed is no more than VREF + 20 KTS and no less than VREF4. IVSI is no more than 1000' per minute…An approach that becomes unstabilized requires an immediate go-around".Flight Options – Part 135 / 91K Aircrew Training ManualPage A6-11 – Date April 15, 2013Subject: Visual Approach and LandingThe training manual pictorial shows that on base leg for a visual approach and landing the landing gear should be down, the before landing checklist should have been completed, the flaps should be at Flaps 3, the bank should not exceed 30 degreed, and the airspeed should be 120 knots. The pictorial also shows that when the airplane is crossing the runway threshold the airspeed should be at Vref.Flight Options – Phenom 300 Aircraft Specific Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)Page 9 – Date July 13, 2012Subject: Visual Traffic PatternsThe SOP shows that when the airplane is at 500 feet above the airport surface on a visual approach the pilot monitoring (PM) should call out "500 FT, Stabilized" and the pilot flying (PF) should then respond with "Stabilized". If the PM calls out "500 FT, Go Around", the PF should then respond with "Go Around"Postaccident Changes to the BCUOn September 9, 2014, Embraer issued Service Bulletin (SB) 505-32-0015, which decreases the possibility of occurrence of the loss of main brakes if a brake pedal overtravels during an emergency situation. The overtravel monitoring remains active on the airplane in case of an actual transducer failure.The changes implemented by the SB on BCU p/n DAP00100-09 include the following:The "ANTISKID FAIL" message will appear on CAS when one of the pedals moves above 95.8 percent. The CAS message "ANTISKID FAIL" will be triggered on ground when the aircraft is stationary for 5 seconds, in order to indicate that the brake pedal adjustment is required before next flight – no loss of anti-skid function.The "BRK FAIL" message will appear on CAS when one pedal achieves 100 percent and the other pedal is below 60 percent (resulting in loss of main brake).The "BRK FAIL" message will NOT appear on CAS when one pedal is at 100 percent and the other pedal is above 60 percent (no brake loss).

NTSB Identification: CEN13LA46214 CFR Part 91: General AviationAccident occurred Monday, August 05, 2013 in Eden Prairie, MNAircraft: EMBRAER EMB-505, registration: N327FLInjuries: 2 Uninjured.This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.On August 5, 2013, at 0848 central daylight time, N327FL, an Embraer S.A. EMB-505, multi-engine turbofan airplane, was substantially damaged during landing at Flying Cloud Airport (FCM), Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The two pilots were not injured. The airplane was registered to and operated by Flight Options, LLC; Cleveland, Ohio. Day visual meteorological conditions (VMC) prevailed at the time of the accident and an instrument flight rules flight plan had been filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 positioning flight. The airplane had departed Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, about 0730 eastern daylight time and was destined for FCM.The pilots reported that the airplane was on a steep visual approach when they landed long and fast. The pilot flying also reported that after touchdown he could feel the pulsing of the anti-skid brakes but was unable to stop on the runway surface. The airplane departed the end of the runway and impacted the airport boundary fence coming to rest on a four-lane highway about 1,000 feet from the runway. At 0838 the data from FCM revealed that the wind was from 150 degrees at 4 knots, 6 miles visibility in mist, few clouds at 200 feet above ground level (agl), an overcast ceiling at 7,000 feet agl, temperature 18 degrees C, dew point temperature 17 degrees C, with an altimeter setting of 29.89 inches of mercury. Remarks indicated that rain ended at 0819 with a one hour precipitation of 0.01 inches.A corporate jet arriving at the Flying Cloud Airport in Eden Prairie overshot the runway Monday morning, went through a fence and came to rest on a road, authorities said.There is no immediate word on why the twin-engine plane left the runway about 8:50 a.m. and ended up partly on Flying Cloud Drive to the southeast of the airport, said Melissa Scovronski, spokeswoman for the Metropolitan Airports Commission.The aircraft’s owner, Flight Options of Cleveland, said there were two crew members and no one else aboard the Embraer Phenom 300, which seats seven passengers. Neither crew member was hurt, said company spokeswoman Lauren Florian.Two pilots and a man were standing outside the damaged year-old aircraft moments after the crash.Southbound Flying Cloud Drive is closed at Pioneer Trail “until further notice,” city officials said in a statement.Scovronski said the airport halted arrivals and departures only momentarily, as required by federal regulations.Authorities have yet to say where the flight originated, but the independent aviation tracking service FlightAware says the plane took off from Pittsburgh International Airport and was scheduled to arrive at 8:14 a.m.Flight Options describes itself as the world’s second-largest private aviation fleet, with more than 100 aircraft serving roughly 1,300 owners and clients.Story and Photo Gallery: http://kstp.com

A plane ran off the end of the runway at the Richard B. Russell Regional Airport after 3 o’clock Monday afternoon.The nose gear of the Beechjet was damaged but both pilots were able to get out safely.There are no serious injuries, but EMS was dispatched to the scene for one person complaining of back pain.There was no one else on board.The jet was from out of town.Fire units also responded non-emergency as a precaution.Original article can be found here: http://wrgarome.comThe Federal Aviation Administration will be at Richard B. Russell Regional Airport this morning to investigate how a plane ran off the runway Monday afternoon.
Airport Manager Mike Mathews said the small jet had two pilots on board but neither was injured. The nose of the plane had minor damage.Mathews said strong winds were a factor in the crash; the jet had a tailwind that shifted when it was trying to land.The plane went past the runway safety area and into the grass.“It went about 600 to 800 feet,” said Mathews.

The Boeing Co.’s executive ranks are being reshuffled due to the retirement of the company’s chief technology officer. The moves include new faces taking over key roles at Boeing Commercial Airplanes.Boeing CTO John Tracy is retiring this summer after the company’s centennial celebration in July. He also oversees engineering, operations and technology for the aerospace giant.Tracy’s responsibilities are being split among four new positions reporting to — and created by — Boeing Chief Executive Officer Dennis Muilenburg. Four execs — Ted Colbert, Scott Fancher, Greg Hyslop and Pat Shanahan — are stepping into the new roles, which include sitting on the company’s executive council advising Muilenburg.Those promotions mean new faces in key roles at Boeing Commercial Airplanes: engineering, airplane manufacturing and new airplane development.Senior vice president Scott Fancher will manage development programs across Boeing from its corporate headquarters in Chicago. At BCA, the 57-year-old has managed several development programs: the 737 MAX, 777X, 787-9, 787-10 and KC-46 tanker. BCA Vice President Mike Delaney is succeeding Fancher managing commercial airplane development programs. He will report directly to Ray Conner, BCA’s president and CEO.John Hamilton is taking over Delaney’s current position — overseeing engineering at BCA. Currently, he manages the division’s safety, security and compliance work, and previously was chief project engineer on the 737 program. Shanahan, 53, is now responsible for manufacturing operations and supplier management across Boeing. The newly-minted senior vice president will be based in Bellevue. He will also manage the company’s environment, health and safety, and its intellectual property programs. If that isn’t enough, he will also oversee all U.S. Army Aviation programs and site activities in Philadelphia and Mesa, Arizona.No one has been named to take over his current role managing commercial airplane manufacturing. For now, Conner will directly oversee that work. Hyslop will manage the company’s engineering, testing and technology development work as a senior vice president in Chicago. The 57-year-old came from Boeing Research & Technology, which he joined in February 2013.At BR&T, Hsylop was involved with moving thousands of engineering jobs out of Washington after the state extended massive tax breaks to the company in hopes of landing 777X final assembly and wing production here. Delaney, also, had a critical role in orchestrating the job moves.Last, senior vice president Ted Colbert, 42, will now manage its IT strategy and operations from Washington, D.C. He is already the company’s chief information officer, and in that role, will continue overseeing the work of about 6,500 experts supporting Boeing’s IT-related programs that generate revenueThe shake up is part of the One Boeing strategy, which aims to better connect the mammoth enterprise’s various parts, Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg said in a statement.“These moves are the natural next steps to build on our core strengths and talent,” and necessary to remaining competitive going forward, he said.Original article can be found here: http://www.heraldnet.com

InterCaribbean Airways has slammed "unreliable” safety and "disruption” at South Caicos Airport.On Monday (March 7) the TCI based airline issued a statement expressing their dismay at the state of the Rescue and Fire Fighting Service (RFFS) at XSC.They said they had made numerous attempts to have the RFFS upgraded to enable them to use their Embraer E120 aircraft, all of which were denied, and that on March 3 all flights were suspended due to issues with safety equipment.The statement said: "We, like the travelling public, are dismayed with the state of the Rescue and Fire Fighting Service at South Caicos."The unreliability of the RFFS has been ongoing for nearly two years now with acute unreliability/un-serviceability or reported sabotage of equipment in recent weeks which have severely impacted our ability to deliver reliable air service to the community of South Caicos and to support the recent spike in travel to the island due to the opening of the resorts there."During the last two weeks alone we have made numerous request to have the RFFS upgraded to enable us to operate into South Caicos with our Embraer E120 aircraft which have all been denied."We have inquired of Turks and Caicos Airport Authority (TCIAA) what is really happening and why they are not able to ensure a reliable RFFS but have not received any satisfactory response or explanation."It was only on February 29 that TCIAA CEO advised us that the RFFS vehicle was fully repaired, yet two days later our request to upgrade flights was refused on the grounds that TCIAA was not able to provide the requisite RFFS service for the E120."Finally late on Friday, March 3, we received information from them that ‘due to loss of Rescue and Fire Fighting coverage ALL flights are suspended’."Suffice to say the TCIAA CEO has not responded to our last request for updated information, so we are not in a position to advise when normal flight operations to/from South Caicos would resume."We find it ironic that the TCIAA chooses to issue a press release (without copying InterCaribbean), while it fails to adequately communicate with InterCaribbean as a principal stakeholder at the airport."Equally alarming, and of particular note is the fact that this is not the first time in recent weeks the TCIAA has said that the RFFS equipment has been sabotaged, but yet we understand an offer to provide safe guarded overnight secure parking for the equipment was declined by the Airport Authority."When all this is taken in context, one may reasonably conclude that providing the required RFFS and thus keeping the airport operating at South Caicos is of a low priority to TCIAA."We call on the Government and the TCIAA board to examine the matters surrounding the RFFS at this airport and to provide an account to all stakeholders as the steward of this publicasset.”The statement was issued in response to an incident last week in which fire trucks at the airport appear to have been deliberately sabotaged.The TCIAA appealed for information to help catch the culprits but the Royal Turks and Caicos Islands Police Force said the matter has not been reported to them.A statement issued by the TCIAA refuted the accusations put forward by InterCaribbean.It said: "It is unfortunate that a release was made that did not state the facts at hand."The facts of the matter are, that there was no suspension of normal flight operations into South Caicos on neither this weekend nor the weekend prior."The Turks and Caicos Islands Airports Authority has made a release to inform the public of their inability to upgrade from a normal category three operation which currently accommodates all domestic aircrafts except for the Embraer Aircraft."This was due to past sabotage, which is outside of the control of the TCIAA. It is indeed emphasised that flight operations continued by both domestic airlines during the period in question contrary to the press release sent out by an airline."On March 4 the TCIAA in collaboration with the TCI Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) was successful in the full restoration of the upgrade from the category three to category four to facilitate the operations of the Embraer in question. Measures have been put in place to prevent further damage from reoccurring."The regulators, CAA travelled into South Caicos on InterCaribbean’s first flight and returned to Providenciales on the last flight, indicating that operations were normal at this time on Friday."The TCIAA remains committed to operating in a safe and secure environment and to be in compliance with all safety standards and procedures as set by the regulators.”Original article can be found here: http://tcweeklynews.com

The Wall Street JournalBy ANDY PASZTORMarch 14, 2016 3:20 p.m. ETU.S. aviation regulators in the summer of 2010 initially declined to issue a pilot medical certificate to then-student aviator Andreas Lubitz, who five years later intentionally brought down Germanwings Flight 9525.The Federal Aviation Administration first said he wasn’t eligible for a pilot’s license due to a “history of reactive depression.”After receiving a report from the applicant’s psychiatrist and psychotherapist, however, FAA medical officials dropped their objections. But in issuing a medical clearance in July 2010, the FAA’s Medical Certification Division said, “Operation of aircraft is prohibited at any time new symptoms or adverse changes occur or any time medication and/or treatment is required.”Later license renewals and revaluations were approved by German doctors.Original article can be found here: http://www.wsj.comFinal Report: https://www.bea.aeroNTSB Identification: DCA15WA093Accident occurred Tuesday, March 24, 2015 in Barcellonette, FranceAircraft: AIRBUS INDUSTRIE A320-211, registration:Injuries: 150 Fatal.The foreign authority was the source of this information.The BEA of France has notified the NTSB of an accident involving a Airbus A320-211 airplane that occurred on March 24, 2015. The NTSB has appointed a U.S. Accredited Representative to assist the BEA's investigation under the provisions of ICAO Annex 13 as the State of Manufacturer and Design of the engines.All investigative information will be released by the BEA-FR.

Date: 14-MAR-16Time: 03:51:00ZRegis#: N4416WAircraft Make: BEECHAircraft Model: 35Event Type: IncidentHighest Injury: NoneDamage: NoneFlight Phase: LANDING (LDG)FAA Flight Standards District Office: FAA San Antonio FSDO-17City: TEMPLEState: TexasAIRCRAFT FORCE LANDED IN A FIELD, NEAR TEMPLE, TXhttp://registry.faa.gov/N4416W Update 9:31 AM: Thomas Pechal with Temple Fire & Rescue issued the following press release Monday morning to clarify what happened Sunday night:
A Beechcraft Bonanza aircraft made an emergency landing Sunday night, March 13, 2016 in Temple, after the pilot reported engine trouble.The flight originated from Austin and was headed to the Dallas area. The pilot told officials the plane developed mechanical issues which led to an engine failure. He was attempting to land at Draughon-Miller Central Texas Regional Airport, when he landed in a field off Airport Trail. The plane received minor damage to the front landing gear and prop. There were no injuries.Units from Temple Fire & Rescue, Temple Police, Scott & White EMS, Department of Public Safety and Bell County Sheriff’s Office responded to the call at 10:43 p.m. All units cleared at 11:57 p.m.The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating.Authorities are working to determine what caused a plane to go down in a Temple field Sunday night.The plane made an emergency landing near Draughon-Miller Airport off Airport Trail around 10:45 PM. One person was on board and reportedly able to walk away with no major injuries.Temple police, fire crews, the Bell County sheriff, and the Department of Public Safety responded to the scene. As of Monday morning, they hadn’t disclosed where the plane was from, where it was headed, or the results of any preliminary investigation.Original article can be found here: http://ktemnews.com

Heimgartner Aviation LLC: http://registry.faa.gov/N6894QNTSB Identification: WPR16LA082 14 CFR Part 137: AgriculturalAccident occurred Friday, March 11, 2016 in Juliaetta, IDProbable Cause Approval Date: 05/23/2017Aircraft: GRUMMAN G164, registration: N6894QInjuries: 1 Uninjured.NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.The commercial pilot was conducting an agricultural application flight. The pilot reported that, while maneuvering the airplane about 300 ft above ground level, the engine experienced a partial loss of power. Unable to maintain altitude, the pilot conducted an emergency landing to a field, during which the airplane landed hard and nosed over, coming to rest inverted. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the No. 2 cylinder head exhibited a circumferential crack of its barrel between the cooling fins.The Federal Aviation Administration had previously issued an airworthiness directive (AD) to address cylinder head cracking on the accident model engine. The AD required periodic visual inspections for cracks in the cylinder heads at specified intervals of time in service (every 100 hours for the accident airplane). According to the engine maintenance logbooks, the AD was last complied with about 35 hours before the accident. The previous inspections to this were sporadic, indicating that neither maintenance personnel nor the owner(s) were regularly complying with the AD.The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:A partial loss of engine power due to a crack in the No. 2 cylinder. HISTORY OF FLIGHTOn March 11, 2016, about 1725 Pacific standard time, an Grumman G-164A, N6894Q, experienced a partial loss of power and collided with terrain during an off airport landing in Juliaetta, Idaho. Heimgartner Aviation LLC., was operating the airplane under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 137. The commercial pilot, the sole occupant, was not injured; the airplane sustained substantial damage. The local aerial application flight departed from a private road in Juliaetta about 1720. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and the pilot did not file a visual flight rules (VFR) flight plan.The pilot stated that the purpose of the flight was to apply 1,600 pounds of (dry) fertilizer to wheat fields. He had completed around 20 loads earlier in the day which equated to about 4 hours of flight time. The airplane departed with a half-full fuel tank and climbed to about 500 feet above ground level (agl). After configuring the airplane to the appropriate manifold pressure and turning the carburetor heat on, the pilot maneuvered the airplane toward the field he intended to spray. While in level flight, about 300 feet agl, the engine began to violently shudder and make loud backfiring noises. The engine experienced a partial loss of power. The airplane continued to descend, unable to maintain level altitude. The airplane landed hard and nosed over, coming to rest inverted.AIRPLANE INFORMATIONThe airplane, a Grumman G-164A, serial number 1730, was equipped with a Pratt and Whitney R985-AN14B engine, serial number P225620. The operator provided excerpts from the engine logbooks that included the AD lists and the last maintenance performed. The records indicated that the last annual inspection was recorded as being completed in April 2015 at a tachometer time of 5,402 hours; the tachometer time at the time of the accident was 5,435, or about 35 hours after the maintenance.In May 1978 the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued an Airworthiness Directive (AD) 78-08-07 applicable to Pratt & Whitney R-985 series engines. The AD required periodic visual inspections for cracks in the cylinder heads at specified intervals of time in service. According to the AD, visual inspections of the cylinder heads are required at intervals not to exceed 100 or 150 hours of time in service, depending on whether the they have been ultrasonically inspected. The logbook excerpts contained a document listing AD 78-08-07, which showed that the most recent compliances occurred in April 2007 and April 2015 (during which time about 1,970 flight hours accrued). The entirety of the AD list only showed 78-08-07 as being complied with in May 2001. On that list, the only AD that showed compliance thereafter was in April 2015 for the cylinder hold-down nuts as per AD 56-06-02.TESTS AND RESEARCHA post accident examination revealed that cylinder no. 2 was cracked around almost the entire circumference of the barrel in between cooling fins.The carburetor, part number 391598, was examined at Precision Engines. The bench test revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Upon disassembly investigators found no debris in the main metering nozzle, float needle seat, idle metering tube, and accelerator pump; no debris was noted in the metering jets.ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONAccording to the NTSB aviation accident database, after AD 78-08-07 became effective there were a total of 3 accidents involving Pratt and Whitney R-985 engines that had a cylinder failure.A similar query was conducted of the FAA's Service Difficulty Report (SDR) database. Among the results, 34 of the reports documented a cylinder crack or separation as the cause of the service difficulty.According to a representative at Covington Aircraft Engines, an aircraft engine maintenance, repair and overhaul facility that specializes in R-985 engines, they seen many cracks in cylinders. He stated that the reasons for the cracks are predominantly twofold: the carburetor is worn, resulting in the engine running too lean (creating hotspots in the cylinder); and thermal fatigue cracks from the pilot shock cooling the engine (an excessively rapid descent going from a high temperature differences within the metal and not the absolute temperature of the metal).The Transport Canada Civil Aviation issued a Service Difficulty Advisory No. AV-2007-2 regarding R-985 cylinder heads. In pertinent part it stated, "It is very important that operators properly warm-up and cool-down the engine before and after flight. This will significantly minimize distress to the engine. It is essential that the cylinder assembly be adequately warmed up in order to "heat stretch" the cold cylinder, especially before applying high power. Failure to do so can lead to fatigue cracks and cause distress to the cylinder head and other rotating parts of the engine. Problems associated with cylinder head separation and cylinder barrel flange cracks can be minimized if attention to cylinder head temperature limitations is closely followed."NTSB Identification: WPR16LA082 14 CFR Part 137: AgriculturalAccident occurred Friday, March 11, 2016 in Juliaetta, IDAircraft: GRUMMAN G164, registration: N6894QInjuries: 1 Uninjured.This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.On March 11, 2016, about 1725 Pacific standard time, a Grumman G-164A, N6894Q, experienced a partial loss of power and collided with terrain during an off airport landing in Juliaetta, Idaho. Heimgartner Aviation LLC., was operating the airplane under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 137. The commercial pilot, the sole occupant, was not injured; the airplane sustained substantial damage. The local aerial application flight departed from a private road in Juliaetta about 1720. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and the pilot did not file a visual flight rules (VFR) flight plan.The pilot stated that the purpose of the flight was to apply 1,600 pounds of fertilizer to wheat fields. He had completed around 20 loads earlier in the day which equated to about 4 hours of flight time. The airplane departed with a half-full fuel tank and climbed to about 500 feet above ground level (agl). After configuring the airplane to the appropriate manifold pressure and turning the carburetor heat on, the pilot maneuvered the airplane toward the field he intended to spray. While in level flight, about 300 feet agl, the engine began to violently shudder and make loud backfiring noises. The engine experienced a partial loss of power, and the airplane was unable to maintain altitude. During the off airport forced landing, the airplane landed hard and nosed over, coming to rest inverted.